Incredibly frustrating that the two parties offered up Clinton and Trump for the highest office in the land.Hopefully the dems can putforth a good candidate in 2020

As much as both parties are responsible for their counter-productive partisan divisiveness, it's hard to blame the republican party for Trump. He was the choice of the people. Plenty of chances for others to beat him, and they didn't. Clinton, on the other hand, was the heir apparent for the Dems and no one who chose to run really had much of a chance against her (once Biden opted out). The fact that such a flawed candidate as Bernie gave her a run indicates she wasn't inspiring the people.

That the American people whittled the party nominations down to Trump v. Cruz and Clinton v. Sanders is rather sad. Maybe both parties can do better in 2020.

I don't know why you're lumping Sanders in with the rest of that lot. I think he easily beats Trump in a general election.

I've heard Trump supporters echo this sentiment, some of them actually liked Sanders better, believe it or not.

The Superdelegates that Sanders lost wouldn't be a factor in a general election. That's on the DNC, not Sanders.

As for a general election, Sanders is a northeastern Jew with some socialist tendencies. That didn't fly well with some Democrats, but those Democrats came from states he likely would have lost in a general election anyways. I think he wins all the blue states and most of the swing states with his pro-middle class, anti-establishment message. Unlike Clinton, Sanders understands the plight of the poor and middle class rural American, and I think he would have reached a lot of those voters in Ohio, Michigan, etc.

Sanders is a total sell out. He took in over 200 million in donations for the DNC, and then just stepped aside because it was Hillary's turn to be president.

Incredibly frustrating that the two parties offered up Clinton and Trump for the highest office in the land.Hopefully the dems can putforth a good candidate in 2020

As much as both parties are responsible for their counter-productive partisan divisiveness, it's hard to blame the republican party for Trump. He was the choice of the people. Plenty of chances for others to beat him, and they didn't. Clinton, on the other hand, was the heir apparent for the Dems and no one who chose to run really had much of a chance against her (once Biden opted out). The fact that such a flawed candidate as Bernie gave her a run indicates she wasn't inspiring the people.

That the American people whittled the party nominations down to Trump v. Cruz and Clinton v. Sanders is rather sad. Maybe both parties can do better in 2020.

I don't know why you're lumping Sanders in with the rest of that lot. I think he easily beats Trump in a general election.

I've heard Trump supporters echo this sentiment, some of them actually liked Sanders better, believe it or not.

The Superdelegates that Sanders lost wouldn't be a factor in a general election. That's on the DNC, not Sanders.

As for a general election, Sanders is a northeastern Jew with some socialist tendencies. That didn't fly well with some Democrats, but those Democrats came from states he likely would have lost in a general election anyways. I think he wins all the blue states and most of the swing states with his pro-middle class, anti-establishment message. Unlike Clinton, Sanders understands the plight of the poor and middle class rural American, and I think he would have reached a lot of those voters in Ohio, Michigan, etc.

The reason I lump Sanders in with the others is that he was not a smart choice as a nominee. He's bright and he's more mature than Trump, but his political views aren't mainstream and are polarizing. Obviously, this is my opinion. When either party nominates extreme ideologues (relative to their party peers), it's just not a good idea. It either makes it difficult to win (Goldwater, McGovern) or makes governing a one party game. I think Sanders would have lost to Trump, but more importantly, i think he would been a terrible choice for the party and the country. Hillary and Donald were also terrible choices. BTW, I would have voted for Bernie over Trump -- or found an alternative.

Incredibly frustrating that the two parties offered up Clinton and Trump for the highest office in the land.Hopefully the dems can putforth a good candidate in 2020

As much as both parties are responsible for their counter-productive partisan divisiveness, it's hard to blame the republican party for Trump. He was the choice of the people. Plenty of chances for others to beat him, and they didn't. Clinton, on the other hand, was the heir apparent for the Dems and no one who chose to run really had much of a chance against her (once Biden opted out). The fact that such a flawed candidate as Bernie gave her a run indicates she wasn't inspiring the people.

That the American people whittled the party nominations down to Trump v. Cruz and Clinton v. Sanders is rather sad. Maybe both parties can do better in 2020.

I don't know why you're lumping Sanders in with the rest of that lot. I think he easily beats Trump in a general election.

I've heard Trump supporters echo this sentiment, some of them actually liked Sanders better, believe it or not.

The Superdelegates that Sanders lost wouldn't be a factor in a general election. That's on the DNC, not Sanders.

As for a general election, Sanders is a northeastern Jew with some socialist tendencies. That didn't fly well with some Democrats, but those Democrats came from states he likely would have lost in a general election anyways. I think he wins all the blue states and most of the swing states with his pro-middle class, anti-establishment message. Unlike Clinton, Sanders understands the plight of the poor and middle class rural American, and I think he would have reached a lot of those voters in Ohio, Michigan, etc.

The reason I lump Sanders in with the others is that he was not a smart choice as a nominee. He's bright and he's more mature than Trump, but his political views aren't mainstream and are polarizing. Obviously, this is my opinion. When either party nominates extreme ideologues (relative to their party peers), it's just not a good idea. It either makes it difficult to win (Goldwater, McGovern) or makes governing a one party game. I think Sanders would have lost to Trump, but more importantly, i think he would been a terrible choice for the party and the country. Hillary and Donald were also terrible choices. BTW, I would have voted for Bernie over Trump -- or found an alternative.

First of all the polls had Sanders way ahead of Trump, by the tune of 4-15%.

And 99% of politicians are polarizing. You could take the most reasonable, middle of the road man on the planet. Put a "D" next to his name and Fox News will call him a Communist terrorist sympathizer. MSNBC and CNN might not stoop that low but you know they will be slanted as well. You're chasing a white whale here, the "bipartisan" horse has left the barn and it's not coming back anytime soon.

And Sanders wasn't some hand-picked stooge, he gained traction because the American people from blue and purple states LIKED him and RESPONDED to him. I heard a lot of independents praise him, a lot of people who normally do not even vote. He had charisma and he spoke the truth about the plight of the poor and the middle class. He had a knack for describing what is actually going on in the streets, where so many formerly respectable areas are turning into ghettos. Where most folks don't have a job that affords them any dignity or security.

I live in Maine and NH, and I am seeing most areas just getting worse and worse, while a couple areas like Portland and Portsmouth are gentrified, getting nicer and nicer. There is your real polarization. A select few people are getting filthy rich in this country, and little of it is trickling down. If calling things out the way they are makes you a radical, then maybe that's what we need.

Basically McCabe promptly followed all relevant procedures for recusal, was never involved with the investigation during any point in his wife's campaign, and got smeared for it anyway, presumably to shield the President from accountability.

Based on the comments that followed, I am not sure anyone read the linked piece. It only takes about 5 minutes. This unambiguously proves that this entire issue is being ginned up to distract from the real Trump issues and to diminish the hard work of honest law enforcement american citizens for the purposes of covering up for a flawed and dishonest president.

Not that I am all that surprised but it ticks me off that the "law and order party" would smear an apparently totally honest law enforcement career official purely for the purposes of partisan politics. Every american citizen should be outraged by this.

I said I am not surprised and I am not surprised at all that this story is being manipulated for partisan purposes but what I am surprised at, based on this information, is just how illegitimate the attack is. More people need to get angry about this. It is getting out of hand. This is now wide spread, institutional obstruction of justice.

Basically McCabe promptly followed all relevant procedures for recusal, was never involved with the investigation during any point in his wife's campaign, and got smeared for it anyway, presumably to shield the President from accountability.

If you read further down on this site, (takes more than 5 minutes) you find a tweet from someone who went through all of the Strzok text messages. The main take away (which included excerpts from the so called incriminating texts between Strzok and Page)?

Quote

They are... not remotely as sold by the media. For a start, in the field of all the candidates, Strzok's initial preference was Kasich.

So the big deep state Clinton/Soros mole was a republican who liked Kasich.

Come on people, let's not stand for this unethical and potentially illegal attempt of cover for a dishonest president. Let's vote all independents into the congress in 2018.

Basically McCabe promptly followed all relevant procedures for recusal, was never involved with the investigation during any point in his wife's campaign, and got smeared for it anyway, presumably to shield the President from accountability.

If you read further down on this site, (takes more than 5 minutes) you find a tweet from someone who went through all of the Strzok text messages. The main take away (which included excerpts from the so called incriminating texts between Strzok and Page)?

Quote

They are... not remotely as sold by the media. For a start, in the field of all the candidates, Strzok's initial preference was Kasich.

So the big deep state Clinton/Soros mole was a republican who liked Kasich.

Come on people, let's not stand for this unethical and potentially illegal attempt of cover for a dishonest president. Let's vote all independents into the congress in 2018.

It's the same person who did both threads.

Rightwing media is going to act in bad faith, but it really is astonishing how little effort the allegedly liberal media made to ground either set of smears in context. Especially the texts, whose meaning becomes sharply different - the "Trump can't ever be President" was an immediate reaction to him bragging about his penis size in a Republican debate, and the "insurance policy" quote that launched a thousand conspiracy theories appears to just refer to going through with the upcoming initial intelligence briefings for Trump in case he won.

The people pushing these narratives know this stuff, but they think their audience isn't going to catch on, and they're sadly almost always right.

Basically McCabe promptly followed all relevant procedures for recusal, was never involved with the investigation during any point in his wife's campaign, and got smeared for it anyway, presumably to shield the President from accountability.

If you read further down on this site, (takes more than 5 minutes) you find a tweet from someone who went through all of the Strzok text messages. The main take away (which included excerpts from the so called incriminating texts between Strzok and Page)?

Quote

They are... not remotely as sold by the media. For a start, in the field of all the candidates, Strzok's initial preference was Kasich.

So the big deep state Clinton/Soros mole was a republican who liked Kasich.

Come on people, let's not stand for this unethical and potentially illegal attempt of cover for a dishonest president. Let's vote all independents into the congress in 2018.

It's the same person who did both threads.

Rightwing media is always going to act in bad faith, but it really is astonishing how little effort the allegedly liberal media made to ground either set of smears in context. Especially the texts, whose meaning becomes sharply different - for example the "Trump can't ever be President" was an immediate reaction to him bragging about his penis size in a Republican debate, and the "insurance policy" quote that launched a thousand conspiracy theories appears to just refer to going through with the upcoming initial intelligence briefings for Trump in case he won.

The people pushing these narratives know this stuff, but they think their audience is too tribal and clueless to ever catch on, and they're sadly almost always right.

All of this is just distraction from the Russia probe. The McCabe allegations and everything that goes along with it is all political distraction from the Trump Adminstration and their supporters. The republican congress thinks that if it can throw enough dirt at the FBI that somehow Mueller's probe can be stopped or delegitimized. It is happening on multiple fronts now. Trump is continually lying over and over saying that there is no collusion. Congressional republicans are asking for Sessions to resign so Trump can get an AG that isn't recused and will end the Russia probe. Nunes is trying to distract while at the same time disrupt the russia probe that he claimed he was recusing himself from. At the same time, Paul Ryan is letting Nunes get away with all of this garbage, other Trump republicans are trying to stop anything related to the Russia investigation.

Even Lindsey Graham who at first seemed a voice of reason with McCain, has joined with Grassley to switch the blame somehow to Chris Steele. It is a complete farce with none of the republican leaders making any reasonable attempt to find the truth, they are only concerned with covering Trump at this point.

The broad stroke painting of our intelligence services as "broken" and "corrupt" is done for one reason only, to free Trump from the Russia investigation. It is incredibly sickening and it is getting to the crisis point.

I just hope that Mueller's investigation can be completed before Trump / congressional republicans can completely obstruct his investigation.

The Russians are literally caught on tape hacking everything and it was shown to Trump's team. There isn't any doubt about whether or not Russia is behind the hack and there isn't any doubt about whether or not the Trump administration have any plausible deniability.

Rob Rosenstein is a Republican. He was appointed into his place as Deputy AG by Jeff Sessions and Donald Trump, who are both Republicans. He appointed Mueller, another Republican, to investigate Trump. Jeff Sessions recused himself because he already had too many contacts with Russians to credibly lead any investigation.

The Russians are literally caught on tape hacking everything and it was shown to Trump's team. There isn't any doubt about whether or not Russia is behind the hack and there isn't any doubt about whether or not the Trump administration have any plausible deniability.

Rob Rosenstein is a Republican. He was appointed into his place as Deputy AG by Jeff Sessions and Donald Trump, who are both Republicans. He appointed Mueller, another Republican, to investigate Trump. Jeff Sessions recused himself because he already had too many contacts with Russians to credibly lead any investigation.

But yeah, a Democratic witch hunt.

you are right...but to some people....they'll find any excuse not to believe the facts - then they'll point to a Youtube video and say - Hillary, Podesta, Obama, etc